Austerity is wrong-headed
It is rather unfortunate that your recent editorial unthinkingly endorses the current stampede toward austerity measures as the panacea to economic problems (“Election results threaten the euro,” May 9, page 8). In fact, the essential ingredient of the European bailouts is to protect Goldman Sachs and Franco-German private lenders from the moral hazard of lending too much to the wrong people.
No one but a simpleton believes that the credit extended by the European Central Bank is anything but computer manipulation that does not represent new real money. However, it does transfer liability to sovereign countries whose populations must struggle to meet unreasonable demands. The global economic Ponzi scheme continues unabated.
No wonder voters are rightly rejecting these phony nostrums. Austerity will reduce populations to poverty and cause very real suffering, while the rich will take advantage of deflated prices to sweep up public and private assets in these countries at fire sale prices. Only the “1 percent” will benefit.
As for solving the real problem of deficits, the austerity measures will push these economies further toward the brink with little chance of recovery for a very long time.
John Hanna
Taoyuan
Seeing red over traffic lights
I would like to add my two cents to the recent discussion on Taiwan’s dangerous traffic.
To me, about the worst things are those traffic lights that show you how many seconds you have left to cross an intersection.
This system is pure madness and facilitates carnage.
What does a driver who approaches an intersection do when he sees that the light will turn red in 5 seconds?
He will speed up, of course. The vehicle will enter the intersection much faster, which arguably is the least desired effect any traffic management system could possibly have.
I sincerely hope that researchers from the National Taiwan University, Academia Sinicia, etc, will find out how many people here are annually crippled, widowed or orphaned due to this stupidity.
Jens Kastner
Taipei
Ma’s nicknames
President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) has probably earned the most nicknames of any president. These nicknames vividly reflect his personality and/or performance.
When former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) was in power, he nominated Ma to run for mayor of Taipei and praised Ma as a “New Taiwanese” with great expectations. Lee later called Ma the “Underwear Runner” — a jogger wearing Ma underwear or an underwear-wearing fugitive running away in a hurry.
Ma has the endearing nickname of “Little Horse Brother” that won him millions of votes in mayoral and presidential elections. Lee and former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) also have the endearing names of “A-hui” and “A-bian,” respectively. The nickname in this form can also mean contempt, depending on the context. In addition, Lee has the nicknames of “Long Chin” and “Father of Democracy.”
In Taiwanese, “jeou” in Ma’s given name can be pronounced as “giu” or “gao.” The latter has a double meaning (“nine” or “dog”). Ma and Bian (from Chen’s given name) can be combined into a Chinese character that means “cheating.”
The Chinese always call Ma “mister” instead of “president.” Many Taiwanese call Ma “Regional Chief” since Ma says Taiwan is “a region of China.” Ma seldom listens to Taiwanese and often does things behind their backs and thus has gained the nickname “Emperor Ma.”
Because of Ma’s incompetent performance, Taiwanese have nicknamed him “Diarrhea Horse.” Ma likes to claim that he is a Hakka, but a Hakka volunteer group has recently given him the new nickname “Boastful Horse” because Ma has broken so many promises. Even vice president-elect Wu Den-yih (吳敦義) has a nickname: “Liar.”
These nicknames indicate that Ma’s policies have been off track. His approval rate has plunged to 15 percent. In his second term, Ma should connect with the public before he “connects with the world.”
Charles Hong
Columbus, Ohio
Dying for your country
It strikes me that a survey on the attitude of young Taiwanese to military service reflects a growing sentiment among youth worldwide these days (“Youth will not fight for Taiwan: poll,” May 13, page 1).
In the US, where there is no conscription, fewer than 2.5 percent of people feel an inclination to enlist in the military for any reason. Immediately after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on New York and Washington, there was only a minor upsurge in enlistments. Yet interestingly, the sense of personal entitlement did not diminish one bit.
The younger generation still wants to “have their cake and eat it too.”
There does not seem to be any feeling of duty to the nation any more. Have we, as the older generation, neglected our duties in teaching our children that “freedom is not free?” Have we grown weary of “keeping one eye open?” Or, if one expands the parameters of the survey, would we find that the younger generation would much prefer a peaceful coexistence or capitulation just to avoid conflict?
I don’t think that a return to ultranationalism is the answer, but I don’t think giving in to a bully is the answer either.
At some point in time, we all need to ‘give back’ to a nation that has given us so much. Maybe that is what they need to hear — they need to appreciate what they have been given.
Tom Kuleck
Greater Taichung
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath